A Local Authority v C 2013

In this case Mrs Justice Parker authorises the removal of an unborn baby from its mother at birth. What is troubling about this case is that the mother is not to be informed of the planned removal until after the event. This effectively denies her the right to state her case in a court process already rigged against her. Put simply, she is now 'guilty unil proven innocent' - the latter an unlikely verdict.

As always, interesting observations by John Hemming MP on this troubling case. http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/a-local-authority-v-c-2013-mother-not.html

In reality, the mother’s case is sealed notwithstanding the best endeavors of the family courts to show ‘that justice is being done’; most often a display for those involved ‘within’ the system due to the secret nature of the family courts. The actions in this case are laced with clear Article 6 ECHR issues most properly summed up by LJ Thorpe two years ago. LJ Thorpe noted that

“There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter....Once you have lost a child, it is very difficult to get a child back.”

Referring to Judge Orrell, he said: “I know he is a very experienced judge and I know he has done wonderful work in Derby for many years. But there is a point where a judge's brisk conduct of business in his search for protection of a child is just not acceptable.”

Clearly unacceptable in this case as a ‘status quo’ has been created, which, when a chid is placed in care, is more often than not, upheld. This is the dismal reality of the family court system as families are churned through the system, coming out heavily bruised on the other side.

Interview at BBC Radio 4 with the superb John Waite

Being led into the BBC studio by an officious and very serious suited and booted BBC staff member (wearing an elf hat) was a clear indication that I was off to a good start. Super chat with John Waite (a true gentleman who lent me his cardigan whilst recording because I was cold) and Joe Kent producer prior to recording. Then a discussion with Richard and Judy (Ha!) before Dame Jenni Murray from women's hour popped in for a chat. And I spoke. And I spoke. And I spoke some more. Changes are happening...I am confident. And yes John Waite, I will happily return to take part in a debate on Women's Hour in the New Year. And thank you John for a super tour of the BBC.

Productive meeting with John Hemming MP and Women Against Rape at Parliament

Discussion with Women Against Rape and John Hemming MP this evening. We were all of the agreement that women must feel safe to report their violent (ex) partners and seek help from professional bodies without running the risk of losing their children on the grounds of being victims.

An admission (published as an open letter)

"Clients are like lambs to the slaughter. Every client I met filled me with sadness (except of course in cases where there was obvious abuse and not in the Local Authorities' and court's interpretation of the word). I would sit with desperate mothers and / or fathers with their eyes wide open in worry repeatedly asking me what I thought the outcome to the case would be. How to relay to the client that the reality is that the children will most likely be made subject to care orders and ultimately adopted. How to tell the client that we are merely going through a kangaroo court process whereby the majority of children are taken from loving parents once the machine (i.e the court process) has been switched on."



"Throughout proceedings clients would genuinely believe that 'justice would prevail' and the courts would see that the children are better of at home with mum and dad. As any other barrister, and for good reason, I told parents that there is no certainty in proceedings.... I did not have the heart to crush their spirits from the outset. I truly believe that we are living in tragic times at the moment."

Michelle Freedman